DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on February 02, 2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 including claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8 is pending for prosecution in this application.
The claim status is as follows:
Pending claims: 1-8
Claims withdrawn (without traverse): 9-16
Claims cancelled: 3 and 7
Claims examined herein: 1, 2, 4-6, and 8
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/14/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilkens et al. (2025/0168246 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wilkens, in view of Dimitrovski et al. (2023/0133444 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dimitrovski, and further in view of Jun et al. (2019/0373505 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jun.
Regarding claim 1, Wilkens discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (“UE” in Fig. 2), the method comprising:
connecting at least one electronic device by non-3rd generation partnership project (non-3GPP) communication (communicating with PIN elements E1, E2 {PINE}, e.g., electronic device, [0096] via non-3GPP connectivity [0044]);
identifying to require at least one quality of service (QoS) associated (determining QoS rules in transmissions [0090]);
transmitting, to a session management function (SMF) entity, via an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity a first message requesting a protocol data unit (PDU) session management (transmitting, to SMF, via AMF, a PDU Session Establishment Request, e.g., first message [0086 or Fig.1D]).
Also, Wilkens states SMF can perform establishment and modification of PDU sessions [0075] and SMF has responsibility for setting up connectivity for UE toward data networks as well as managing user plane for that connectivity [0078].
Wilkens does not disclose identifying to require at least one quality of service (QoS) associated with the at least one electronic device, determining a PDU session modification message including an identifier of the at least one electronic device and a user plane address; and receiving, from the SMF entity performs, via a base station (BS), a second message including a PDU session modification command; which are known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as taught in Dimitrovski’s disclosure as below.
Dimitrovski, from the same field of endeavor, teaches:
identifying to require at least one quality of service (QoS) associated with the at least one electronic device (determining NAS message including session parameters like QoS Rules is destined to UE, [0114]);
transmitting a PDU session modification includes an identifier of the at least one electronic device and a user plane address (initiating PDU Session Modification procedure by transmission of PDU Session Modification Request, which contains source address, e.g., electronic device identifier [0179], and PDU session ID, e.g., user plane address [0118]); and
receiving, from the SMF entity performs, via a base station (BS), a second message including a PDU session modification command (receiving, from SMF, via access network {AN}, e.g., BS, PDU Session Modification Command destined to UE, as a response to PDU Session Modification Request [0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to receive a PDU session modification command including the device identifier and the user plane identifier, from the SMF entity, in response to its corresponding request; thus obtaining policy for forwarding traffic of user devices towards destination network in designated PDU sessions - Dimitrovski [0042].
Wilkens in view of Dimitrovski does not further disclose transmitting, to the SMF entity via the base station, a third message including a PDU session modification acknowledgment; which is well known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as taught in Jun’s disclosure as below.
Jun, from the same field of endeavor, teaches transmitting, to the SMF entity via the base station, a third message including a PDU session modification acknowledgment (responding to SMF {via access network} with PDU session modification command Ack [0109 and Fig.9]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to transmit, to the SMF entity, via the base station, a PDU session modification acknowledgment, in response to receiving a PDU session modification command; thus causing SMF to request UPF to modify AN tunnel information, which is used by UE to communicate to its intended destination devices – Jun [0109].
Regarding claim 2:
Wilkens in view of Dimitrovski and Jun discloses all features of claim 1. Wilkens further teaches electronic device can start uplink and/or downlink data sessions with the selected service providing device SPD2 [0115 or 0159]. Furthermore, Dimitrovski adds in by mentioning a message including session parameters like QoS Rules is destined to UE [0114].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to identify one QoS associated with traffic between one UE and one electronic device; thus facilitating UE to connect to service providing device to consume the corresponding services via proper connections – Wilkens [0016] .
Consequently, Wilkens in view of Dimitrovski and Jun further disclose the one QoS is associated with traffic between the at least one electronic device and the UE.
Regarding claim 4:
Wilkens in view of Dimitrovski and Jun discloses all features of claim 1. Wilkens does not, while Dimitrovski further teaches the PDU session modification command includes a QoS rule corresponding to the at least one electronic device ( PDU session modification command include QoS rules being notified to UE [0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to include a QoS rule in the PDU session modification command; thus providing UE with a different forwarding policy/ QoS rules for applying in data transmissions – Dimitrovski [0167] .
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1, except that claim 5 is in a device claim format, and wherein Wilkens discloses a user equipment (electronic device [160]) comprising at least one transceiver (input/ output devices [162]), at least one processor (processor [160]) communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver; and at least one memory (memory element [161]), communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, storing instructions executable by the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, to cause the UE to perform claimed functionalities.
Regarding claims 6 and 8:
Wilkens in view of Dimitrovski and Jun discloses all features of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 2 and 4, respectively, except that claims 6 and 8 are in a device claim format.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chandramouli (US-20230109691-A1 [0116]),
Gupta (US-20250261079-A1 [0146, 0149]),
Liao (US-20210368341-A1 [0068, 0080, 0087, 0132]),
Ly (US-20240340784-A1 [0103, 0123, 0189]),
Manithara (US-20250106742-A1 [0072, 0073, 0078]), and
Sethi (US-20250071666-A1 [0092, 0107]),
are all cited to show that applying the QoS rule to one electronic device, wherein the QoS rule is included in a PDU session modification command message, which is sent in response to a PDU session modification request – would cause SMF to request UPF to modify AN tunnel information, which is used by UE to communicate to its intended destination devices – similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayman A. Abaza, can be reached at 571-270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.Q.T./
/YEE F LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465